Choose THREE reasons that EXPLAIN why American colonists were upset with Britain's tax laws? (MULTI SELECT! SELECT THREE)
A. The colonists were taxed by Parliament who knew nothing of American colonial life.
B. The taxes greatly reduced the colonists' ability to grow agricultural products.
C. The British tax collectors only collected taxes from Patriot colonists.
D. The colonists could not elect representatives to British Parliament.
E. The colonists' rights as British citizens were being ignored.

By the 1770’s, Great Britain had established a number of

colonies in North America. The American colonists thought of

themselves as citizens of Great Britain and subjects of King

George III. They were tied to Britain through trade and by the

way they were governed. Trade was restricted so the colonies

had to rely on Britain for imported goods and supplies. There

were no banks and very little money, so colonists used barter and

credit to get the things they needed.

Following the French and Indian War, Britain wanted to

control expansion into the western territories. The King issued

the Proclamation of 1763 prohibiting settlements beyond the

Appalachian Mountains. Colonists who had already settled on

these lands were ordered to return east of the mountains.

In 1765 Parliament passed the Quartering Act that said the

colonists needed to find or pay for lodging for British soldiers

stationed in America. With the French and Indian War over,

many colonists saw no need for soldiers to be stationed in the

colonies.

Britain also needed money to pay for its war debts. The

King and Parliament believed they had the right to tax the

colonies. They decided to require several kinds of taxes from the

colonists to help pay for the French and Indian War. These taxes

included the Stamp Act, passed in 1765, which required the use

of special paper bearing an embossed tax stamp for all legal

documents. Other laws, such as the Townsend Acts, passed in

1767, required the colonists to pay taxes on imported goods like

tea.

Many colonists felt that they should not pay these taxes,

because they were passed in England by Parliament, not by their

own colonial governments. They protested, saying that these

taxes violated their rights as British citizens.

The colonists started to resist by boycotting, or not buying,

British goods. In 1773 some colonists in Boston, Massachusetts

demonstrated their frustration by dressing up like Indians,

sneaking onto ships in the harbor, and dumping imported tea into

the water. This was called the Boston Tea Party. The British

took action by closing the Boston port. A similar but smaller tea

party took place in Yorktown, Virginia in 1774.

The First Continental Congress met in 1774 to make a list of

complaints about the way Britain was treating the colonies. Many

people in America felt their concerns were not being heard, and

this caused more unhappiness in the colonies.

In April of 1775, a group of colonists fought against the

British army in the Battles of Lexington and Concord. In 1775,

the Second Continental Congress decided to form a Continental

Army, which consisted of citizens from 13 colonies. George

Washington was selected to be the Commander-in-Chief of the

Army. The colonies were ready to fight for their rights.

soothing tone) but quickly, the tone changes from a light tone to a grim one. by introducing disturbing word choices that are illogical.make a list of some of levertov’s images of war from both of her poems. how do her wordsaffect you? do you agree with her position on war? write a short response (at least 100 words) and support your answer with personal experience or your studiespoets can change the tone in a poem, and levertov does when the she refers to "delicate man . .whose eyes/are flowers that perceive the stars”. the word choices here are different. theimages began to show feelings of hope/potential. but this mood is interrupted with the dark oppressive words "entrails of still-alive babies" and "carcass-gulleys". levertov continues to switch tones by "the deep intelligence living at peace would have"—one is left with a sense of hope. i can connect with her words that humans can do better things than fight in war. we only have one life so dying in a war would be for no reason. also, i am a christian and in the bible, it says "thou shall not kill", and i strongly believe in that.people respond differently to satire—some like it, others don't get it. in at least 150 words, describe what you think of goines's narrative essay. discuss whether you think his position is convincing.the satire kept people's attention, rather than just rambling. instead of being dead serious, he adds humor to enlighten it. i think he did a good job of proving his point, but convincing people to stray from their own beliefs is hard, and satire can be offensive to that person. overall i think that goines's narrative essay was good because narrative essay create deeper understanding. i also like that the narrative essay is in first-person. the essay was filled with diction and word choice to let you know that the essay is going to be witty yet satirical. his point was to write  

explanation: